EN BANC

A.C. No. 6484, June 16, 2015

ADELITA B. LLUNAR, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT, Respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

The present administrative case stemmed from the complaint-affidavit1 that Adelita B. Llunar (complainant)
filed against Atty. Romulo Ricafort (respondent) for gross and inexcusable negligence and serious
misconduct.

Antecedents

In September 2000, the complainant, as attorney-in-fact of Severina Bafiez, hired the respondent to file a
case against father and son Ricardo and Ard Cervantes (Ard) for the recovery of a parcel of land allegedly
owned by the Banez family but was fraudulently registered under the name of Ricardo and later was
transferred to Ard.

The property, which Ard had mortgaged with the Rural Bank of Malilipot, Albay, was the subject of
foreclosure proceedings at the time the respondent was hired. The respondent received from the
complainant the following amounts: (a) P70,000.00 as partial payment of the redemption price of the
property; (b) P19,000.00 to cover the filing fees; and (c) P6,500.00 as attorney's fees.

Three years later, the complainant learned that no case involving the subject property was ever filed by the
respondent with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Legaspi City. Thus, the complainant demanded that the
respondent return to her the amount of P95,000.00.

The respondent refused to return the whole amount of P95,000.00 to the complainant. He argued that a
complaint2 for annulment of title against Ard Cervantes had actually been filed in court, though not by him,
but by another lawyer, Atty. Edgar M. Abitria. Thus, he was willing to return only what was left of the
P95,000.00 after deducting therefrom the P50,000.00 that he paid to Atty. Abitria as acceptance fee for
handling the case.

The complainant refused to recognize the complaint for annulment of title filed by Atty. Abitria and claimed
that she had no knowledge of Atty. Abitria's engagement as counsel. Besides, the complaint was filed three
(3) years late and the property could no longer be redeemed from the bank. Also, the complainant
discovered that the respondent had been suspended indefinitely from the practice of law since May 29,
2002, pursuant to this Court's decision in Administrative Case No. 5054,3 which the complainant suspected
was the reason another lawyer, and not the respondent, filed the complaint for annulment of title in court.

In a resolution4 dated February 2, 2005, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

In a report5 dated May 22, 2009, IBP Investigating Commissioner Cecilio C. Villanueva found the respondent
to have been grossly negligent in handling the complainant's case and to have gravely abused the trust and
confidence reposed in him by the complainant, thereby, violating Canons 156 and 17,7 and Rules
1.01,8 16.03,9 18.03,10 and 18.0411 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Also, the Investigating Commissioner found the respondent to have erred in not informing his client that he
was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law. Due to these infractions, Commissioner Villanueva
recommended that the respondent remain suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.

In Resolution No. XIX-2011-224 dated May 14, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors agreed with the
Investigating Commissioner's findings on the respondent's liability but modified the recommended penalty
from indefinite suspension to disbarment.12 It also ordered the respondent to return to the complainant the
amount of P95,000.00 within thirty (30) days from notice. The respondent moved for reconsideration.

In his motion for reconsideration,13 the respondent argued that his referral of the complainant's case to Atty.
Abitria was actually with the complainant's knowledge and consent; and that he paid Atty. Abitria
P50,000.00 for accepting the case. These facts were confirmed by Atty. Abitria in an affidavit14 dated
November 17, 2004, but were alleged to have been overlooked by Commissioner Villanueva in his report.
The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XX-2013-710 dated June 21, 2013, denied the respondent's
motion for reconsideration.15chan robles law
 Our Ruling

We find the respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings with his client and in engaging
in the practice of law while under indefinite suspension, and thus impose upon him the ultimate
penalty of DISBARMENT.

The respondent in this case committed several infractions making him liable for grave misconduct. First, the
respondent did not exert due diligence in handling the complainant's case. He failed to act promptly in
redeeming the complainant's property within the period of redemption. What is worse is the delay of three
years before a complaint to recover the property was actually filed in court. The respondent clearly dilly-
dallied on the complainant's case and wasted precious time and opportunity that were then readily available
to recover the complainant's property. Under these facts, the respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR), which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."

Second, the respondent failed to return, upon demand, the amounts given to him by the complainant for
handling the latter's case. On three separate occasions, the respondent received from the complainant the
amounts of P19,000.00, P70,000.00, and P6,500.00 for purposes of redeeming the mortgaged property
from the bank and filing the necessary civil case/s against Ard Cervantes. The complainant approached the
respondent several times thereafter to follow up on the case/s to be filed supposedly by the respondent
who, in turn, reassured her that actions on her case had been taken.

After the complainant discovered three years later that the respondent had not filed any case in court, she
demanded that the respondent return the amount of P95,000.00, but her demand was left unheeded. The
respondent later promised to pay her, but until now, no payment of any amount has been made. These facts
confirm that the respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which mandates every lawyer to "hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession"16 and to "account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client."17 In addition, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand
the funds or property he holds for his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated these
funds or property for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client.18
cha nrob leslaw

Third, the respondent committed dishonesty by not being forthright with the complainant that he was under
indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The respondent should have disclosed this fact at the time he
was approached by the complainant for his services. Canon 15 of the CPR states that "a lawyer shall
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients." The respondent
lacked the candor expected of him as a member of the Bar when he accepted the complainant's case despite
knowing that he could not and should not practice law.

Lastly, the respondent was effectively in the practice of law despite the indefinite suspension imposed on
him. This infraction infinitely aggravates the offenses he committed. Based on the above facts alone, the
penalty of suspension for five (5) years from the practice of law would have been justified, but the
respondent is not an ordinary violator of the profession's ethical rules; he is a repeat violator of these rules.
In Nu�ez v. Atty. Ricafort,19 we had adjudged the respondent liable for grave misconduct in failing to turn
over the proceeds of the sale of a property owned by his client and in issuing bounced checks to satisfy the
alias writ of execution issued by the court in the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 filed against
him by his client. We then suspended him indefinitely from the practice of law - a penalty short of
disbarment. Under his current liability - which is no different in character from his previous offense - we
have no other way but to proceed to decree his disbarment. He has become completely unworthy of
membership in our honorable profession.

With respect to the amount to be returned to the complainant, we agree with the IBP that the respondent
should return the whole amount of P95,000.00, without deductions, regardless of whether the
engagement of Atty. Abitria as counsel was with the complainant's knowledge and consent.

In the first place, the hiring of Atty. Abitria would not have been necessary had the respondent been honest
and diligent in handling the complainant's case from the start. The complainant should not be burdened with
the expense of hiring another lawyer to perform the services that the respondent was hired to do, especially
in this case where there was an inexcusable non-delivery of such services.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name REMOVED from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately upon his receipt of this Decision. Also, he
is ORDERED to RETURN the amount of P95,000.00 to complainant Adelita B. Llunar, within thirty (30)
days from notice of this Decision.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the respondent's personal record and furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation
to all courts in the country. This Decision should likewise be posted on the Supreme Court website for the
information of the general public.

SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibra ry

Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Peralta, and Leonen, JJ., on official leave.